Life

About 20 years ago, my wife gave me an introductory flying lesson as a birthday present. I loved the experience and was soon on my way to earning my private pilot’s license. I was fortunate to meet an exceptional flight instructor, Tony Hicks, while taking ground school through the Florida State University Flying Club. Tony, a former Navy F-14 Tomcat pilot, was a great instructor because he not only taught the mechanics of flying an airplane, but also the psychology of being a pilot. With Tony’s guidance and training I was granted my Private Pilot’s license on September 11, 1998. I enjoyed flying regularly until the events of another September 11th three years later forever changed general aviation. Although I’ve flown a few times since then, the cost of aviation, plus the loss of freedom associated with increased security, have pretty much grounded me, and many of my pilot friends. However, the lessons of aviation have stayed with me and I often think of aviation problem-solving when facing a problem or challenging situation on the ground. Here are a few of the lessons that often go through my head:

Fly the airplane – No matter what happens in the air, a pilot’s first and foremost job is always to fly the airplane. It doesn’t matter if the wing is on fire; you fly the airplane first, and then worry about the fire. In 1972 the crew of an Eastern Airlines L-1011 violated this rule with disastrous consequences when they flew their aircraft into the ground after they became focused on trouble-shooting a burned-out landing-gear indicator light. This is true in life too. Paying attention to our task and our mission prevents unnecessary problems and failures. Things are going to go wrong sometimes. Our job is to stay focused and not create disasters by neglecting the fundamentals while we try to solve what are often minor problems.

Know your Limits – Not all pilots are the same. Experience, training, and proper equipment can safely take one pilot where another would be at great risk. Just because you have an instrument rating and spent some time in the clouds doesn’t mean that you’re ready to fly an instrument approach at an unfamiliar airport after a 3 hour flight, with 200-foot ceilings, gusting winds, rain, and ¼ mile visibility in a Cessna. However, you might be fine at your home field with 1000 ft. ceilings, 1.5 miles visibility, and light winds. It’s a pilot’s job to know his or her limits and know that those limits aren’t constant. Recent experience, proper equipment, and being healthy and rested all impact on a pilot’s limits. It’s true for life on the ground too. Sometimes it’s better to wait until conditions have improved, or we have better prepared, before launching a new project or trying something new. There are limits to the number, type, and severity of challenges we can all handle.

Aviate, Navigate, Communicate – This is the prioritization for pilots when things go wrong. One of the best examples of this is Captain Sullenberger and the Hudson River landing. If you listen to this recording of his communications with air traffic control, it’s clear that his focus isn’t on talking with the control tower but on flying the aircraft and navigation. The reason for this is, there’s very little an air traffic controller can do to assist in an emergency other than get other aircraft out of the way. A pilot’s first priority remains flying the aircraft, the second job is to know where the aircraft is, and where it’s going. Once you have those down, then you worry about talking to the tower. This is true in life too, when things go wrong our first job is to maintain personal control and do our part as best we can. Next, we need to figure out where we are, and where we want to go. Lastly, we can reach out to trusted others for guidance and assistance.

I’ve just returned from a visit to Los Angeles with my wife where we celebrated Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year. During our visit we attended two different synagogues, both of which appear to be experiencing exponential growth and vibrancy at a time when studies show that overall synagogue attendance and membership are in rapid decline. Of course, it’s not just synagogues that are in crisis these days. For example, the Christian Post reports that “Methodism in the U.S. has lost membership every year since 1964”. The Presbyterian Church reports that it lost 15% of its membership between 2012 and 2014. Moreover, it’s not just religious institutions which are suffering membership losses. In his book Bowling Alone, author Robert D. Putnam examines the severe membership declines in a wide array of organizations such as political groups, civic organizations, fraternal lodges, religious groups, and service clubs. He describes this decline as a destruction of the social fabric of our society. I agree with him and I’ve been trying figure out what is driving this decline and how it can be reversed. This is issue is so important to me that I actually take notes when I visit synagogues regarding the size and composition of the people attending, the nature of the service, and other characteristics that are notable to me.

I want to tell you about these two synagogues because I believe they reveal some important truths about the changes in our world. The two synagogues I visited at first appear to be very different. The first, Beit T’Shuvah, is a synagogue led by an ex-con turned Rabbi, Mark Borovitz, and grew out of an addiction treatment center that is attached to the synagogue. It’s very focused on addiction recovery and, while the crowd is predominantly under the age of 40, there are plenty of people of all ages. The second synagogue is iKar, and it is led by a dynamic Rabbi, Sharon Brous. iKar does not own a building, but attracts hundreds of people of all ages to its services. Neither of these two synagogues are old legacy institutions. iKar was started in 2004, and Beit T’Shuvah about 25 years ago. The weekly attendance at both these institutions is in the hundreds and for holidays grows beyond a thousand.

One of the factors that I see in common between these two institutions that I believe is allowing them to thrive when their cohorts are withering and dying is that they are collaborative in nature. These are not authoritarian institutions run in a top-down model by the clergy and board of directors who insist upon complete and total control. Instead, the synagogues seem to exist for the purpose of providing a space or mechanism through which the members can create their own Jewish experiences. The clergy are facilitators of the experience rather than providers of the experience. This is very different from my experience where people attending services are passive participants whose participation is limited to responsive readings and where synagogue boards concern themselves with issues of whether or not congregants should be allowed to wear blue jeans to services on the basis of maintaining tradition and without consideration of what experience is being sought by the members.

The services I attended were very participatory, allowing member input and expression. This was especially true of Beit T’Shuvah, where members frequently got up to share their stories and give their reflections on readings. Musically, these two synagogues have moved far beyond the operatic cantorial solo and utilize music that is engaging and participatory. Although it has an excellent band, at Beit T’Shuvah members often get up to perform songs they’ve written or to perform with the band. At iKar, drumming combined with traditional lyrics provides a musical experience that draws in the audience to sing along, dance, and move expressively. At both synagogues when people are called up to help lead or give readings they are allowed an opportunity for self-expression rather than being limited to reading words on a page. The result of this is that the experience is not simply something that is scripted out by the Rabbi or Cantor, but is dynamic and is influenced by the people attending. The congregation is no longer a passive recipient, but is an engaged partner in creating the service experience.

A few years ago, I was at a legal technology conference where the keynote speaker was Don Tapscott, who spoke about the transition to a collaborative society and who wrote:

“Collaboration is important not just because it’s a better way to learn. The spirit of collaboration is penetrating every institution and all of our lives. So learning to collaborate is part of equipping yourself for effectiveness, problem solving, innovation, and life-long learning in an ever-changing networked economy.”

In my law practice I sought to become more collaborative and I found that it creates very happy clients. I now use software such as Mycaseinc and clio that allow me to share files with clients, exchange messages, and to better bring them into the decision-making process in their cases. Rather than being simply the problem-solver for my clients, I now see myself as in partnership with them, my role being a resource and advocate, as we seek to find a solution to their legal need or concern.

We live in a new era, where old models of authority and top-down structures are being rejected. Sadly, many of our social institutions have resisted the change to a more collaborative world, and they’ve been steadily paying the price as people vote “no” with their feet and head for the door. My experience with the two synagogues leads me to believe that there is a great need out there for religious and civic institutions. I believe people are craving community and connection, but I don’t think most will find it in places of arbitrary authority where they are expected to passively consume the experience. The question is, can the old institutions adapt to this change? Or will their demise be required so that new institutions can arise and meet the need?

I am presently with my wife in Los Angeles, California where we are preparing to spend our second year celebrating Rosh Hashanah at Congregation Beit T’Shuvah. We are both looking forward to seeing a young man from Tallahassee helping to lead the services at this synagogue. A year ago this young man was at a very low point in his life, but thanks to the kindness and generosity of Beit T’Shuvah he is finding a new lease on life.

It is always interesting to me to see how life evolves. What follows below is a talk I gave at the very beginning of Rosh Hashanah 2013 in Tallahassee. In the talk I mention Beit T’Shuvah and the work they are doing. Little did I realize that my curiosity would take me on such an incredible journey that has created many wonderful new relationships, not just for me, but for a number of people in my life. I actually got to meet the young woman I quote in the talk and she’s an incredible person who is doing amazing work in her life. I hope you enjoy this look back at my writing from 2 years ago.:

Rosh Hashanah Talk 2013

Last year, a few weeks after we finished the High Holy Days I gave a talk from this very bima on why I don’t like the High Holy Days and described my struggle to find meaning in the rituals and words in the High Holy Day prayer book. In a way my talk was somewhat of a challenge to our tradition and maybe even to G-d to help me find some meaning the process we’re about to go through. Let me tell that if you come into a synagogue, stand before your community, and directly challenge G-d to help you understand something, you’re probably opening yourself up to some interesting opportunities for growth.

And that’s what happened for me, and through my experience I got a new perspective on not only why we observe the High Holy Days, but also why we even come here at all.

The answer, I have learned, is actually very simple. It’s all about connection.

For me all this understanding started with an email to my Mother-in-law. You know that in any good Jewish story there has be a mother or a mother-in-law. So, I was writing my Mother-in-law an email and I was telling her a story about some challenges people close to me faced many years ago. I’d told this story many times before, but this time when I hit send, I’m felt uncomfortable about what I had written. As I thought about my discomfort I realized that while everything that I’d told my Mother in law in the email is true, I haven’t really been honest in what I shared with her because the story I told her was carefully edited to leave out any of the struggles that I encountered or any of the failures I experienced. I was quite distressed when I realized that I had written myself out of what really was an important part of my life story.

It occurs to me that one of the challenges in life, at least for me, and I suspect for many of you, is to show up and tell our stories in the most honest way possible, disclosing not just our strengths and victories, but also our struggles and failures. I’ve certainly seen this in my work as a nurse and as an attorney. People will commonly talk around and evade disclosing information that reveals their struggles and imperfections. But why is this such a challenge? Don’t we all want to be authentic honest people?

To understand this further, I looked to the work of researcher Dr. Brene Brown who studies shame and vulnerability. I’m told that Brene Brown’s TED talk on vulnerability is one of the top ten TED talks of all time and she was named one of 50 most influential women of 2009. Brene Brown says we as human-beings are hard wired for connection with other human-beings, but that shame, which is really fear of loss of connection, creates a barrier to connection, and that to fully connect we must be willing to be vulnerable and tell our stories in a wholehearted way.

She writes: “We must remember that our worthiness, that core belief that we are enough, comes only when we live inside our story. We either own our stories (even the messy ones), or we stand outside of them – denying our vulnerabilities and imperfections, orphaning the parts of us that don’t fit in with who/what we think we’re supposed to be, and hustling for other people’s approval of our worthiness”. Brown says that in seeking avoid vulnerability we numb ourselves, but we’re not just numbing shame and vulnerability, we’re also numbing joy, love, and creativity.

A few days ago we gathered for Selihot and prior to the service we watched a film called G-Dog about a Jesuit Priest name Father Greg Boyle, who I met this summer that Chautauqua Institution. I’ve learned a lot about the impact of shame and the power of overcoming shame to reach connection from Father Boyle’s work. I highly recommend his book Tatoos on the Heart. Father Boyle runs, Homeboy Industries, the largest most successful gang intervention program in the United States. In describing how he helps turn a 70% recidivism rate into a 70% success rate that has helped decrease gang activity in Los Angeles by 50% he writes: “ You stand with the least likely to succeed until success is succeeded by something more valuable: kinship. You stand with the belligerent, the surly, and the badly behaved until bad behavior is recognized for what it is; the vocabulary of the deeply wounded and those whose burdens are more than they can bear”. It’s about overcoming shame and developing connection.

Similar work is happening in the Jewish community with the work of Rabbi Mark Borowitz, himself a former addict, who now leads a congregation whose work is a 120 bed residential treatment facility. The name of the facility, Beit T’shuvah. The house of return. Did you know that Jewish addicts and convicts exist? At Shomrei Torah we learned this several months ago when a Jewish inmate wrote to us and requested prayer books. I am very proud to say we answered the call. Unfortunately, the stories of our fellow Jews who struggle with addiction or who have had legal troubles rarely get told in our synagogues. Sadly, even when those stories get told, we often act as if they’re anomalies rather than real problems in our community. Consider what one young woman from Beit T’shuvah wrote:

As a young “nice Jewish girl” from Calabasas, to many people I am not the usual addict. Yet, still people do not want to hear what I have to say. They head nod me off until I shut up and then they give me the “not in my house” speech. Usually goes along the lines of my child gets great grades, they are in all AP’s, they are involved in extracurricular activities, we have Shabbat every Friday, or another excuse to make me believe they are perfect. But I too had all of those traits, yet I checked into rehab at 18 years old.

We all have issues. Every family is dysfunctional in its own way. The question is when do we stop leaving the dirty laundry at home and start talking about our problems? Judaism is rich in sources of comfort and teachings about the possibilities for change. When it comes to the social ills of our own, however, we often seem to prefer denial. People are coming into treatment younger and younger and from all different types of homes. But how can we stop it? My advice is to stop living in denial. Break the taboo and start talking about personal issues and stop hiding behind a mask. Learn how to cope in a healthy way with issues rather than just pretending they don’t exist. Without learning healthy coping mechanisms we turn to escaping through drugs, alcohol, gambling, shopping, work, food, etc. Addiction does not discriminate. If kids and adults believe that this disease CAN happen in their own backyard, they will become more aware of how their actions affect their lives

Bringing our troubles into the synagogue, telling our stories, it’s really what why we’re here. Sure, there are lots of reasons why people come to a synagogue. Some of us come to socialize, some for rituals, some for a sense of ethnicity, but at the core, it’s all about connection. Jewish philosopher Martin Buber wrote: “when two people relate to each other authentically and humanly, God is the electricity that surges between them.”

Rabbi Adderett Drucker recently recommended a book to me, and I want to recommend this book to every person who wants to strengthen and grow our community. The book is called “Relational Judaism” by Ron Wolfson and the basic premise is that it doesn’t matter how beautiful your building is, how many programs you offer, how charismatic your rabbi is, or how pretty your website is. None of that matters, what does matter is whether the people who come through your doors find a truly welcoming community where they find connection and build relationships? We need to ask are people, including newcomers, sharing Shabbos dinners, dinning in Succahs together, gathering to study, and is your synagogue a place where people can show up and share their story, and be heard. Is your congregation a safe place for people to tell their story?

One of the most powerful stories in the book is about a synagogue where huge overdone parties had become the rule but as soon the Bar/Bat Mitzvah was over the families left to never be seen again. In that synagogue they brought the parents of children preparing for Bar/Bat Mitzvah’s together to share their Bar/Bat Mitzvah stories and the author writes: “We realized that they were not happy with what the expectation were, but that they felt helpless to change it. They didn’t want their child to be the only one not having dancers, the games, etc.” As the families shared their stories, the conversation moved from the subject of parties, to what kind of children did they want to raise, and what is the purpose of the Bar/Bat Mitzvah.

The result of those conversations was not only to change the way the synagogue did Bar/Bat Mitzvahs, but it also turned their previous 80% drop-out rate of post bar/bat mitzvah families into an 80% retention rate. People changed from seeing their synagogue as a place of transactions, such as bar/bat mitzvah training and celebrations, to a place where they were seen and could share stories and experiences with other people. They had become a place of connection.

As we begin our journey through the High Holy Days, we refer time and time again to repentance and t’shuva, but what is this? I used to think that T’shuva meant apology, but that’s incorrect. The word for apology is actually “ sheliot”. T’shuva means “to return”, but return to what? I think it’s a return to connection.

William Tyndale, who coined the term “Day of Attonement” in his 1530 translation of the Hebrew Bible implied that sin is a matter of estrangement, of disconnection. Maimonides writes that Teshuva “brings close those who are far off” and Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchek in commenting on Maimonides’s teaching defines sin as that which creates distance between a person and G-d.

There’s a Hasidic teaching that says that every human-being is tied to G-d with a rope. If the rope breaks, but is later fixed with a knot, then that individual is connected ever closer to G-d than if there never were a break in the rope. Thus, errors, mistakes, and failures have the potential of drawing us ever closer to G-d.

My readings on the High Holy Days lead me to the idea that the purpose of t’shuva and repentance is much greater than what most of us consider to be “sinful acts”. I’m seeing the purpose as a return to authenticity and a promise that despite our short-comings, imperfections, and failures, we are worthy of love and connection whether it be with G-d or with our community.

In closing, as we go through the next 8 days, I invite you to look at this as a process of connection, not of self-flagellation. In just over a week we’ll fast, not to punish ourselves, but to render ourselves vulnerable, so that when stand before G-d and recite the al chet prayer ten times, not listing our sins as is commonly thought, because this actually translates as the times “we missed the mark”, we do so with a whole heart showing our true imperfect selves. This is our opportunity to share our stories, to become more authentic, to allow ourselves to be vulnerable, and in the process transform both ourselves and our community. Let’s connect.

For most of us Labor Day marks the end of summer, one last long weekend to enjoy sunshine and cookouts with friends and family. Rarely do we ask where did this holiday come from and what does it commemorate? I don’t recall the history of Labor Day being taught in school and beyond advice for avoiding sunburn at the beach it doesn’t get much press attention. I think it’s a safe bet that few of us are aware of the fascinating and complex origins of this national holiday.

Labor Day, as an American holiday, has its roots in the labor movement of the late 19th century. The years after the Civil War were a period of incredible economic expansion and industrialization in the United States. Massive waves of immigrants were landing on our shores as workers arrived to toil in factories, logging, mining, and railroads. Working conditions were often very hazardous, wages were low, the labor market corrupt, and child labor was rampant. Early labor unions were formed to try to improve the lives for workers through solidarity. Individuals who identified as members of anarchist, socialist, and even communist groups organized and led many of these early efforts.

One important event leading to the creation of Labor Day occurred on May 4, 1886 in Haymarket Square, Chicago, Illinois. The event was a worker rally organized by a group of anarchists in support of the eight-hour workday. In many ways the rally was a complete failure as many of the speakers failed to appear and the expected crowd of 20,000 was only about 2,500. It was near the end of the rally, when only about 200 people remained that more than 100 police officers armed with rifles showed up to break up the rally. An unknown person then threw a bomb at the police, who panicked and opened fire, killing some of their own. In the end seven police officers and four of the workers were dead and scores were wounded.

The government responded to this tragedy by declaring martial law throughout the entire nation and then arresting large numbers of labor leaders including the anarchist organizers of the rally. Eight organizers of the rally were charged with murder despite there being no evidence that they had anything to do with the bomb and the fact that all but two of them were not present when the bomb exploded. The two who were present were on the podium and couldn’t have thrown the bomb. The eight anarchist organizers were put on trial and all were convicted in what most workers considered to be a horribly unfair trial. It is said that the company bosses selected the names for the jury pool and the Chicago Tribune is said to have offered money to the jury if they convicted. Five of the eight convicted anarchists were executed by hanging. The surviving three fared better when they were later pardoned after a new governor, John P. Altgeld, was elected. Governor Altgeld reviewed the case, found there to be no evidence to support the convictions, and granted pardons to the survivors.

This event became known as the “Haymarket Affair” and it became a rallying point for workers who began gathering every May 1st to remember the martyrs of the Haymarket Affair. This annual event grew into what is known as either “May Day” or “International Workers Day” which is celebrated on May 1st of each year. To this day, many countries throughout the world, including all the major industrial countries except the United States, celebrate some sort of worker’s holiday on May 1st.

The creation of the U.S. federal holiday of Labor Day occurred less than 10 years after the Haymarket affair, following yet even more workers’ deaths at the hands of the government. This time it was railroad workers who were striking against the Pullman Palace Car Company. The workers were led by Eugene Debs, a founder of the Industrial Workers of the World (Wobblies), and who would later go onto become the leading socialist figure in the United States. The Pullman Company petitioned the Courts and obtained an injunction against the strike on the basis that, because the company carried mail on its trains, the worker’s strike was causing disruption of the mail. President Grover Cleveland then sent in the U.S. Army and the U.S. Marshalls to break up the strike. The Army opened fire on the striking workers, killing 30 and wounding 57. This violent suppression of the strike created conflict between President Cleveland and the labor movement. Less than six days after the end of the Pullman Strike, President Cleveland and Congress, both seeking to find political conciliation with the labor movement, pushed through legislation creating the national Labor Day holiday. However, to ensure that the holiday did not continue to become a memorial to the martyrs of the Haymarket Affair, President Cleveland moved the holiday from May 1st to its current date in September. President Cleveland appears to have achieved his goal, because few Americans today have any knowledge of the Haymarket Affair and few have ever heard of the deaths of the workers during the Pullman Strike.

The censorship of history continues to this day. The US Department of Labor website describes the holiday as “a creation of the labor movement and is dedicated to the social and economic achievements of American workers. It constitutes of a yearly national tribute to the contributions workers have made to the strength, prosperity, and well-being of our country.” It is telling that the Department of Labor website fails to mention the government’s bloody roles in the Haymarket Affair and the Pullman strike and how those two events contributed to the creation of the holiday.

One of my things I enjoy most about working as an attorney is that people share their stories with me. As a lawyer I hear stories about relationships, about business transactions, about careers, and just about any other aspect of life you can think of. I find these stories fascinating and I feel very honored that my clients have trusted me with information about some of the most private aspects of their lives.

I don’t know if it’s the same for all lawyers, or for lawyers who spend their days doing things other than litigation, but I feel that I’ve learned a lot about the world and life from the practice of law and the stories my clients have shared with me. The list below is some of the lessons I’ve learned that I believe have helped me to grow as a person:

1.) People are multidimensional – Whatever greatness or failure we may experience in our lives, we’re all much more than our current circumstance or single events. People sometimes make terrible mistakes and cause great harm to themselves or others, but even those of us with the worst track records have aspects that are worthy of respect and the potential for improvement. Likewise, many wildly successful people who do great things in the world also struggle with great imperfections.

2.) You can win an argument and still lose – It is normal to experience disagreements in our relationships and it’s very tempting to do all we can to prove to others that our position is the right or correct one. We trial lawyers, who argue for a living, are very susceptible to doing this in our personal relationships. The problem is that this comes at the expense of relationships. When we seek to win an argument and insist upon proving the other person wrong, we create distance between us and other person. People generally don’t want to be in a relationship with someone who constantly tells them they’re wrong or points out their shortcomings. Granted, there are times when it’s important to speak up, especially where great harm will result. However, for minor issues, it often does far more harm than good. Remember, it’s not our job to think for or fix other people. Ultimately, in relationships, you can win all the battles, but still end up loosing the war.

3.) Disrespect creates deep wounds – Believe it or not, most people come to see me because they feel they’ve been treated disrespectfully. Rarely do I ever have someone come into my office and tell me that a creditor violated the truth in lending act or engaged in an unfair and deceptive trade practice. Instead, prospective clients tell me stories of disrespect and share with me their resulting feelings of indignity. Just as the schoolyard bullies and cruel cliques of childhood inflict emotional trauma on their victims that often lasts well into adulthood, the grown-up bullies we encounter often leave severe emotional wounds behind that can take years for people to recover from, if ever. For me, this has motivated me to make an extra effort to try to ensure that the people I come into contact with, even if we are in a dispute, are shown the respect and dignity that I believe all people are entitled to.

4.) Comparing ourselves to others is foolish and toxic – The truth is, in most cases, we don’t really know much about the intimate lives of other people. The family that often appears to be doing financially well and achieving great success may well be on the brink of total collapse. Trying to keep up with our image of other people’s lives can bankrupt us monetarily and emotionally. I remember one lesson about litigating cases that I learned from an experienced trial lawyer when I was just starting out. She told me, don’t worry about what the other side is or isn’t doing during a trial, focus on what you need to do for your client, if you continuously respond to what they do, you’ll never get around to putting on your client’s case. I found this was great advice both in and out of the courtroom. I try to keep my focus on my own work, my life, and the things that I can control. I remind myself frequently, what others are doing is rarely any of my business or concern. It’s much better to create and tell our own story than to try to duplicate the life of another.

5.) Beware of righteous anger – We live in a world where other people sometimes cause us harm either intentionally or unintentionally. Sometimes we are left with wounds and hurts from the actions of others and anger is a very understandable and natural response. It’s very tempting to want to inflict upon the other person the same or great harm and suffering, believing that this will resolve our anger. However, I have rarely seen where punishing the other person does much to resolve anger or hurts. Righteous anger can impair our ability think rationally and result in our harming ourselves and others. I recall an instance when I was representing clients in delinquency court where a man who was being victimized by teenagers stealing his mail from his mailbox came into Court seeking restitution for having purchased a firearm and asking for payment for the hours he sat in the window of his home with the weapon watching the mailbox with the intention of shooting the children who were stealing his mail. Granted, the teenagers were causing him significant harm through what they saw as a prank, but his desire to shoot them was completely out of proportion. Fortunately, he never got the opportunity to use his gun and to suffer the regret and severe legal consequences that I strongly suspect would have occurred. It can be very difficult to let go of hurt and anger, but it’s absolutely necessary in order to live the best possible life going forward.

I’ve never had children, so I don’t know what it’s like to experience the emotions of a parent. The closest I’ve come to being a parent is my relationships with my nieces and nephews. If being a parent is anywhere nearly as cool as being “Uncle David” it has to be awesome.

This week I’m very proud and excited that my nephew is following in my footsteps and will be starting as a 1st year law student at my alma mater, City University of New York School of Law. This got me thinking about what I’ve learned in my journey from being the child of divorced parents who didn’t have college educations to being a lawyer. I thought about what advice I can offer my nephew as he takes his journey and this list is what I’ve come up with:

Relax. Despite all you’ll hear about how difficult and stressful law school is, it’s really not that bad. When studying law, read the cases as stories and then think about what the moral story is. Don’t try to memorize, try to understand. In law school what you are really studying are the sacred values of our society. It’s much easier and more interesting to study and remember stories than to try to memorize rules and holdings.

Be Diligent. Go to class every day, handwrite your notes on paper, go home and rewrite them, and then later type them into your computer to make an outline in which you brief every case. Study your outline for the final exam. If at all possible, don’t take a computer to class and turn your phone off. They are very likely to distract you.

Strive for Integrity. One of a lawyer’s most valuable assets is his or her reputation for integrity. Start building yours now. Hold yourself to a very high standard of honesty and trustworthiness. People will notice and your fellow law students will remember.

Be Creative. Law is a creative endeavor; make time to develop yourself as a creative thinker. As a law student I was amazed at how much pastel painting opened my mind to think about the law from new perspectives. To this day, when confronted by a vexing legal problem I will sometimes put down the law books and pick up a musical instrument, write or read a poem, or listen to good music.

Open yourself to Weird. Sometimes the weirdest most unorthodox law professors teach you truths about the law that you won’t find in textbooks.

Be Civil. The image of the jerk lawyer is popular entertainment, but is a recipe for disaster in real life. Remember, every dog has his day. The lawyer you insulted, embarrassed, or humiliated today may be the lawyer you need a favor from tomorrow. Civility is much more than being polite to opposing counsel and their clients; it’s treating others as you want them to treat you regardless of how badly they may be behaving. Also, it’s absolutely necessary for your own mental health and effectiveness as a lawyer. Start practicing it now with your fellow students and professors.

Think before you act. When you’re about to do something that you’re not sure of, ask yourself: If I had to explain this on my bar application, what would I say?

Plan your career early. Law is a competitive business; start planning your career now. Most of us don’t graduate into $120k per year jobs with large law firms. Make an effort to network with the legal community outside the law school. Clinics and internships are a great way to start. This will help you identify what areas of law interest you and will provide you with contacts for things like client referrals and job opportunities.

Keep monkeys off your back. No legal career has ever been helped by alcohol or recreational drug use. According to the ABA, lawyers suffer from addiction at twice the rate of other professions and that most addicted lawyers start as addicted law students. Practice good mental hygiene and stay true to your own values. Get help if needed.

Keep things in perspective. There is a difference between striving for excellence and being a perfectionist. Perfectionism will paralyze you and keep you from learning. You will make mistakes and occasionally fail despite your best efforts. The professor, or later the judge or jury, will not always agree with you. Accept it and move on.

Make Time Take Care of Yourself. Eating a healthy diet and getting regular exercise will help you perform better as a student. Don’t forget, there is a world outside the law school and you’re living in one of the world’s great cities. Go explore. You will cherish the memories.

Enjoy the journey. Don’t miss the experience of law school by only focusing on the life that may follow it. In law school you will the opportunity to explore history, examine our societal values, develop your writing and persuasive skills, and create many new relationships. Be grateful for the experience while it happens. Remember, my 3rd year clinic partner never got to practice law because, despite being young and living a healthy lifestyle, she died unexpectedly while waiting for her bar exam results. No one guarantees us tomorrow, we must be grateful for today.

In this final installment of my examination of the U.S. Supreme Court decision regarding same sex marriage in Obergefell vs. Hodges I examine the dissents of Justice Thomas and Justice Scalia.

Justice Scalia concurs with the dissent of Justice Roberts, but felt that it was necessary for him to write separately “to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy.”

Justice Scalia is quite famous for his scorching and snarky dissents in which he often resorts to ridicule of the other justices and their reasoning. In this dissent he doesn’t disappoint us in the least. His opening is similar to Justice Roberts’ dissent in that he tries to create distance between his “personal feelings” regarding same-sex marriage and his opposition to finding a right to marriage for same sex couples. Justice Scalia writes:

“The substance of today’s decree is not of immense personal importance to me. The law can recognize as marriage whatever sexual attachments and living arrangements it wishes…it is not of special importance to me what the law says about marriage.”

In other words, like Justice Roberts, he’s trying to insulate himself from being judged homophobic by history. Having assured everyone that he doesn’t hate gay people, Justice Scalia then becomes quite melodramatic in his dissent. He basically accuses his fellow justices of destroying American democracy and taking over the other branches of government.

“Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court.”

In classic Scalia fashion he accuses his fellow justices of “robbing the people of the freedom to govern themselves”. His argument throughout his dissent is really two-fold: 1.) This is a political question with no civil right involved. 2.) Marriage is a matter for the States and does not involve a constitutionally protected liberty interest.

It is interesting to note that although Justice Scalia criticizes the majority for failing to present a more developed legal argument, his dissent contains only the most minimal citation to judicial precedent. He repeatedly returns to the fact that only nine Supreme Court justices get to decide the case. However, he doesn’t acknowledge the dozens of District Court and Appellate Judges who, during the decisions giving rise to the present case, repeatedly reached the same outcome as the majority in this case. Indeed, only a small number of Judges have found that same sex marriage is not a Constitutionally protected right.

One very interesting portion of his argument arises during his criticism of his colleagues and the institution in which they serve. Justice Scalia brings up an interesting, and I think important, observation regarding the lack of diversity in today’s Supreme Court. “The Court,” he writes:

“consists of only nine men and women, all of them successful lawyers who studied at Harvard or Yale Law School. Four of the nine are natives of New York City. Eight of them grew up in east- and west-coast States. Only one hails from the vast expanse in-between. Not a single South-westerner or even, to tell the truth, a genuine Westerner (California does not count). Not a single evangelical Christian (a group that comprises about one quarter of Americans), or even a Protestant of any denomination.”

Actually, Justice Scalia is somewhat misleading in this statement. His colleague and friend, Justice Ginsberg is a graduate of Columbia Law School, although she did study at Harvard before transferring to Columbia. In many ways, this is a somewhat odd attack on what many feel is the most diverse Court in our history. Consider that 3 out of the 4 women who have ever served on the Court are currently serving. There is a Black male justice, of which there has only been one other. As far as we know, there are no homosexual Justices (Although it does appear that the only person nominated from my hometown of Tallahassee, George Harold Carswell, may be the only non-heterosexual ever nominated). We have the first and only Hispanic Justice. He is correct that the Court lacks religious diversity. All current justices are either Catholic or Jewish, although historically 91 of the 112 Justices who have served on the Court come from a Protestant background. The average age of our current justices is approximately 70 years old. The lack of diversity in legal education is also concerning.

This commentary on diversity becomes more intriguing because later in the dissent Justice Scalia cites to the wisdom of a group of historic Judges who are hardly a diverse group at all:

In many ways that’s the irony of Justice Scalia’s dissent. He utilizes diversity as a weapon to criticize, but he’s not at all bothered by the lack of historic diversity in our legal system to whose precedents he believes we should rigidly adhere. He doesn’t seem to see diversity as something that is protected by the Constitution. Yet there is an uncomfortable truth to Justice Scalia’s argument that the Constitution doesn’t create rights to promote fairness and justice for a diverse society. Our founding fathers and ancestors did not see justice and fairness in ways that we do in modern times. Consider for instance that State laws prohibiting contraception for married couples were lawful until 1965. It wasn’t until 1981 that we got a woman on the US Supreme Court. Our nation didn’t even prohibit segregated schools until 1954. As recently as 1986 the Supreme Court upheld laws criminalizing gay sex. I can’t help but wonder if Justice Scalia thinks we should be bound to the past until such time as the electoral process provides an opportunity to vote for change?

Justice Scalia’s dissent argues this limitation of Constitutional protection by claiming that the Court should refrain from looking to the spirit, the intent, and the promise of the Constitution. The focus should remain only on the text. Justices should not read into the text any rights that are not explicitly stated. He believes that it is through constitutional amendment and not judicial interpretation based upon experience that change should occur. While I do not think this perspective is without merit, I don’t believe that for many oppressed and minority groups his perspective offers a realistic hope of justice and freedom from oppression by the majority group. Other than women’s suffrage and abolishing slavery, our nation has never once amended the Constitution to create a new right or to offer any group protection from any form of oppression.

Lastly, to conclude this blog post, we turn to the dissent of Justice Thomas who begins his dissent by rejecting the majority’s concept of liberty. He writes:

“The Court’s decision today is at odds not only with the Constitution, but with the principles upon which our Nation was built. Since well before 1787, liberty has been understood as freedom from government action, not entitlement to government benefits.”

Justice Thomas utilizes a definition of liberty that was written in 1769 in an analysis of the laws of England, the very nation we broke away from in pursuit of freedom:

“the power of loco-motion, of changing situation, or removing one’s person to whatsoever place one’s own inclination may direct; without imprisonment or restraint, unless by due course of law.”

He then conducts an analysis of liberty, as it was understood under the British Magna Carta. His reasoning for doing this is his belief that this was the understanding of liberty possessed by the framers of the Constitution. He spends a great deal of time in his exploration of “liberty” and seems willing to expand it to include freedom from government action. However, he claims that even with this expanded definition he still rejects the right of same sex marriage because he sees the right of marriage, along with the governmental benefits, to be about an entitlement to governmental benefits.

Justice Thomas points out that the petitioners are free to have whatever form of religious marriage they wish, but that in his view the case is about their seeking governmental recognition of their marriage and the governmental benefits that flow from that recognition. These may be valid points, but Justice Thomas doesn’t in any way address, other than by virtue of tradition, why the government can restrict its recognition of marriage to only one man and one woman. I’m left wondering, under Justice Thomas’ perspective, when can the government create benefits that are entitled to some people and not others? Could we create a benefit that is arbitrarily for men only, for people of color only, only for Catholics, etc.? If my understanding of Justice Thomas is correct, then he believes such would be allowed.

The final issue that comes up in Justice Thomas’ dissent is without a doubt the most bizarre piece of judicial writing that I have ever read. Honestly, I was shocked when I read it and it still seems like something you’d read in the Onion rather than a US Supreme Court opinion.

Justice Thomas begins discussing “dignity” and states that the US Constitution does not protect it. He claims that because dignity is innate to all human beings it cannot be impacted, positively or negatively by governmental action. He writes:

“Slaves did not lose their dignity (any more than they lost their humanity) because the government allowed them to be enslaved. Those held in internment camps did not lose their dignity because the government confined them. And those denied governmental benefits certainly do not lose their dignity because the government denies them those benefits. The government cannot bestow dignity, and it cannot take it away.”

I’m at a complete loss as to what to say about this other than it’s got to be one of the most ridiculous and callous statements ever written by a Supreme Court Justice. In my opinion, the right to vote, due process, freedom of speech, and protection against unlawful searches and seizures are all rooted in a fundamental respect for the dignity of human beings. To view our Constitution as providing nothing more than a framework for the function of government to me is to strip it of articulation of our values. This ultimately denigrates the very nature of the document and the nation that looks to it for direction. I’m simply appalled.

In closing, this decision and the dissents, apart from their important impact upon American life, reflect many of the challenges and conflicting perspectives we face as our nation moves into the 21st century. In some ways, and it’s strange for me to admit this, Justice Scalia may have some valid points when he argues that rather than looking to our Courts to create new rights, we should be amending the Constitution. Consider that ours is the oldest Constitution is use in the world today and we’ve rarely amended it. With the exception of women’s suffrage and the abolishing of slavery, we’ve not amended it to create any new civil rights or end oppression in over 200 years. We are utilizing a document that pre-dates the industrial revolution, any form of electronics, and mechanized transportation to run what is perhaps the most complex civilization in the history of the world. The question that will remain after this case is to what degree do we reinterpret and extrapolate to find meaning and direction, and at what point do we simply say that it’s time to amend or rewrite? My thought is that not do either of these things will allow us turn a blind eye to injustice and inequality as these concepts emerge in the modern world.

It’s been about a month since the Supreme Court issued its decision in Obergefell v. Hodges in which it held that the Constitution protects the right of marriage for same sex couples. I read the decision immediately after it was published and I’ve been contemplating what to write about it since then. Journalists have already written much about this opinion and I’m certain that the future will bring even more commentary by formal legal scholars. There is much about this opinion and the dissents that I find intriguing and worthy of discussion. In many ways, I see a reflection of the different perspectives of the American people in the writings of the Supreme Court Justices. Because of the complexity of the various approaches by the jurists in the opinion and multiple dissents, I’m going to divide this into 3 parts in order to keep this from becoming too lengthy and to better focus on the writings of the individual justices.

The 5-4 decision is the narrowest possible victory for the petitioners and the split decision is reflective of the societal split and legal difficulty regarding the topic of same-sex marriage. My experience has been that, at its best, the intersection between law and family is difficult. The law seeks certainty and predictable outcomes. It favors statutes and rules that can be applied uniformly to all that appear before a Court. Families and relationships are anything but formulaic. What is just and proper in one family, or relationship, might not be in another. However, there is a tradition among judges that wherever possible they will decide a case on the simplest basis and in the manner that leaves the law as untouched as possible. Despite all the talk of this case as being a historic groundbreaking decision, I believe the Court kept to this tradition, as I will explain below.

Justice Kennedy, author of the majority opinion, begins the opinion by examining the history of marriage. He notes that marriage has evolved throughout history and “has not stood in isolation from developments in law and society.” I feel that he treats the subject and the people involved with a great deal of compassion. He humanizes the case by reciting the backstories and struggles of the petitioners. The case is actually a consolidation of cases from different states involving 3 different couples, each with a unique and compelling story of the harm they suffered from denial of their request to marry or have their marriage recognized by their home state. This humanization of the issue continues throughout the majority decision with language such as:

“Marriage responds to the universal fear that a lonely person might call out only to find no one there. It offers the hope of companionship and understanding and assurance that while both still live there will be someone to care for the other.”

It is important to remember that the role of the US Supreme Court is one of Constitutional Interpretation. It is not a trial Court that decides issues of fact. Its fundamental role is to be the final decision-maker on Constitutional issues. Therefore, it is appropriate to ask, what does the Constitution have to say about marriage, a historically religious ritual often performed by clergy? After all, we don’t hear of issues regarding baptism or Bar Mitzvahs coming before the Court. On the other hand, the marriage relationship, as is noted in the opinion, is a major part of American law with many benefits and privileges being granted through law to married couples. It is this dichotomy of marriage as both religious and secular that makes it such an emotionally charged subject. Interestingly, religion is mentioned in the Constitution, but the word “marriage” doesn’t appear even once in the US Constitution.

One might expect that the Court would decide this issue on the basis of religious freedom. That is, if a clergy person will marry you, then by virtue of your right to religious freedom, the state must recognize your marriage. However, the Court, I believe very wisely, didn’t base its decision upon religious freedom. To have decided the issue on the basis of religious freedom would have elevated clergy to the role of legislating marriage from their pulpits and created a de facto violation of the separation of church and state.

The Court decided the issue based upon the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses contained 14th Amendment of the Constitution, which is familiar territory for the Court when deciding issues of family life. The Constitutional text that the Court considered is:

“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

While marriage is not a mentioned in the Constitution, the Supreme Court long ago determined that marriage is a fundamental right that must be highly protected against government intrusion. The Court has used this reasoning in prior cases to conclude that state laws restricting marriage based upon race, prohibiting marriage for inmates, laws restricting the right of marriage for fathers with unpaid child support were all unconstitutional. The opinion plainly states that the Court does not see itself as creating a new marriage right, but as affirming a deepened understanding of an existing right. Justice Kennedy writes:

“The limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples may long have seemed natural and just, but its inconsistency with the central meaning of the fundamental right to marry is now manifest. With that knowledge must come the recognition that laws excluding same-sex couples from the marriage right impose stigma and injury of the kind prohibited by our basic charter.”

In other words, the concept of liberty and equality in the United States is not static, but changes as our understanding and insight expands. The Court gives an excellent example of this concept of emerging understanding by discussing the abolition of the laws that treated married women unequally known as the “doctrine of coveture”. Historically, married women in the United States lacked legal capacity, they were considered subjects of their husbands, and all their property belonged to their husbands. Contracts by married women were unenforceable unless her husband ratified the contract. Such laws persisted in our country up through 1981 when the US Supreme Court declared them to be unconstitutional. As noted by the Court, if the Court had not looked to emerging insights of liberty and equality, married women in the United States would have remained subjects of their husband.

One interesting aspect of this decision that I expected to see but wasn’t included, is the application of the “strict scrutiny test”. In prior cases involving fundamental rights, the Court has utilized an analysis known as “strict scrutiny”. In this analysis, once the Court has found that a fundamental right is at issue, the State then has the burden of showing that there is a compelling state interest at stake to justify the intrusion upon the fundamental right and that the state action is narrowly tailored to further the compelling interest while limiting the intrusion upon the fundamental right. For example, if a state wants to remove a child from a parent it is infringing upon the parental right of privacy and it must show a compelling interest such as protecting the child from abuse. The removal must be no more than is necessary to protect the child, thus if supervised visits can be done safely, they must be allowed. I am not sure why the Court omitted the strict scrutiny analysis in this case. Perhaps, it felt this was unnecessary given the citation to prior cases.

Having found that marriage is a fundamental right that cannot be denied to same sex couples, the Court then discusses why this issue cannot be left to the voters through the democratic process. I will discuss this issue further when I address the dissent filed by Justice Roberts who argues this point quite strongly.

I believe Justice Kennedy could have ended the decision at this point, but I suspect he understood the controversial nature of the decision and the need to thoroughly explain the reasoning and scope of the decision. Just before ending, he addresses the issue of same-sex couples whose marriages are valid in one state, but not recognized in another. He describes this situation as “the most perplexing and distressing complication[s] in the law of domestic relations” and then describes the hardship and risk this creates for same sex couples. He concludes his discussion of that topic by stating “that there is no lawful basis for a State to refuse to recognize a lawful same-sex marriage performed in another State on the ground of its same-sex character.”

There is another aspect to consider when analyzing Justice Kennedy’s writings. That is, whether or not Justice Kennedy is writing for the present or for future generations. The US Supreme Court has too often been on the wrong side of history and justice when it comes to issues of equality and civil rights. The Court spent a generation upholding and defending segregation. It upheld internment of Americans with Japanese heritage during Word War II. Such decisions have not enhanced the historical reputation of the Court as a place where justice was found. Justice Kennedy clearly writes this opinion from a position of enlightened moral authority. I suspect that he has a vision of the future and he writes to bring the Court into alignment with the vision.

In the closing paragraph, the opinion returns to the aspirational language seen at the beginning. The language is much more akin to that used in a marriage ceremony than what is usually seen in a Supreme Court opinion, but I think it fits well with the overall compassionate tone of the opinion. I believe this paragraph will be of great value to future generations and I would not at all be surprised to see it become a part of same-sex marriage ceremonies. I think that, even if you read nothing else of the actual opinion, the final paragraph is well worth reading:

“No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.”

The case of Rachel Dolezal, the NAACP leader who is accused of lying about her race, has generated a lot of news headlines. It touches on a lot of hot-button issues in American culture and I find it a very interesting story. I’ll leave to others to decide whether or not Ms. Dolezal was right or wrong in her actions. It does appear that there is significant evidence that Ms. Dolezal often exaggerated or simply made-up facts about her life to further the identity she created for herself. My interest isn’t so much in passing judgment on Ms. Doezal, but on understanding her journey and how our society reacts to it, and what does it mean for my life?

To me, the fundamental question is whether or not our identity is forever bound to whatever group we happen to born into? Are characteristics of race, ethnicity, gender, and religion permanent fixtures in our lives or can we choose?

A parallel news story currently happening is that of Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner, the former Olympian who has now adopted a female identity. I believe that one can argue quite persuasively that gender is rooted in biology as evidenced by different X and Y-chromosomes that distinguish male and female. Yet, we know this is not the entire story for some people. Some people, such as Caitlyn Jenner, have a need to live their lives the opposite gender from that found in their biology. I don’t know what it feels like to have this desire, but I believe that the needs of such people should be respected and that they are entitled to pursue whatever life will make them happy. I also know that many would argue, and I would agree, that it would offensive and disrespectful to refer to Caitlyn Jenner as male or use male pronouns in addressing her. The decision of a person who is not genetically female to live as a female is becoming accepted and respected as a true expression of the person and evidence of courage.

Race is not an all or nothing matter and is arguably much more fluid than gender is. Granted there are some genetic racial markers, but we also know that all humans, regardless of their race, share the same set of genes. We also know that many people, including President Obama, have historic and genetic roots in more than a single race. Genetic research has shown that approximately 4% of “white” Americans show evidence of “black” ancestry in their DNA. It is interesting to note, and I believe it’s instructive as to how our society thinks about race, that President Obama is frequently referred to as the first “Black” President, when in reality he is equally “white”. Sadly, “white” both historically, and for many in modern times, in the United States has been given a very narrow definition and more value than it warrants. Our history is that classification by race has been a tool for oppression and disruption of unity among large numbers of people in our society. The rules of race, like those of gender, have been strictly enforced. Those who tried to cross the lines often faced the severest of sanctions. In light of our collective experience with the injustice this has created does this perspective make sense anymore? Why is it offensive for a person to move across racial groups or to choose to live in more than one group? If a child grows up with black siblings or parents, yet has white skin, is that child dishonest to claim a black identity?

For me, this idea of choosing identity and alignment is both interesting and deeply personal. I am a Jew by Choice, meaning that I wasn’t born Jewish, but made a decision to convert more than 20 years ago. Conversion to Judaism is a religious act that I think is most strongly defined by a commitment to cast one’s lot with the Jewish people. In most settings it is accompanied by at least a year of study involving subjects ranging from basic Hebrew, Jewish Holidays, and Jewish History. However, I have found that no matter how much one studies, no matter how religiously observant one becomes, or identified with the Jewish people, there will always be those within the Jewish community who refuse to accept the convert as Jewish. Their arguments usually focus on issues such as the legitimacy of the Rabbi who performed the conversion or the technicality of religious observance of the convert. I have personally encountered this and as a result have actually undergone 3 conversion ceremonies to try to satisfy the predilections of various Rabbis who came to my community. However, it isn’t just Rabbis who create challenges, individual Jews are sometimes less than accepting. For many of these people, Jewish identity and the purpose of Jewish community involves a reconnection to the lives of eastern European grandparents, Lower East Side tenement life, or other cultural memories that I know little about. On the other hand, and much more importantly, I have found that the vast majority of people in the Jewish community have welcomed me with open arms and created for me a sense of family that simply didn’t exist for me before. However, I am often reminded of Yisrael Campbell, who like me has also gone through 3 conversions, in his film about his conversion to Judaism “Circumcise Me” where he asks:

“When did I become Jewish? The first time I converted, the second time, the third time? Have I always been Jewish? Am I still not Jewish?”

I have asked myself all of these questions at various points in my journey, although less and less so these days. For me, the issue of casting my lot with the Jewish people really does resolve the question. So many of the people who I love, who I feel the deepest connections to, who are my family come from the Jewish community that it is impossible for me to imagine that my life and well-being is separate from theirs. But my world isn’t limited to the Jewish community. I have relatives and deep friendships with people who are not Jewish. It is not an either-or question for me. I cannot operate in a world of “them and “us”. I believe that Father Gregory Boyle said it best when he said: “There is no ‘them’ and ‘us”, there is only us”.

The other issue that remains outstanding in this matter is that of truth and at what point, if ever, does truth become outright lies? I’m currently reading a book called “Pioneer Gild: The Annotated Autobiography of Laura Ingalls Wilder”. The book tells that actual story behind the publication of the “Little House on the Prairie” series of books, which were published as fiction. Of relevance to this discussion is how Rose Wilder Lane, the daughter of Laura Ingalls Wilder, took liberties in her writing biographies of famous Americans such as Henry Ford, Charlie Chaplin, and Jack London. In her writing it is said that she often made up facts and events to further the creation of an image of the person and to make the stories more interesting. Her argument was that she wasn’t lying, but that she was using fiction to create a larger truth. Not everyone agreed with Rose Wilder Lane’s use of fiction to create truth and it is said that she was nearly sued by the widows of Jack London and Charlie Chaplain. However, this practice is fairly commonplace in our culture. The American history we teach in our public schools is not the full and complete history of our nation. I would argue that we’ve carefully selected pieces of truth that support a given narrative of our history. However, it’s a narrative that other pieces of truth show is, at best, not completely truthful and, at worst, completely dishonest.

I think that most of us create narratives for our lives that, while not dishonest, they probably don’t follow the exact letter of our own historical truth. It’s always interesting to me to listen to family members recount past events and hear the often wildly different ways in which they remember the past and tell their collective stories. Are we all liars? Perhaps to some degree, but I think it’s more than willful dishonesty. I think that to be truly honest is to be vulnerable in ways that frightens most of us and may even be something that human beings are not truly capable of. Instead, we create narratives of our lives that we share as our truth, but which maintain a degree of conformity with how we see ourselves and how we wish others to perceive us. It is how we maintain a sense of self. Was Caitlyn Jenner being dishonest while living as a man, or is she being dishonest, albeit for a necessary purpose, now that she’s living as a woman? On the other hand, is she now growing into her own truth?

I guess that’s where I would leave the matter of Rachel Dolezal. She cast her lot with a people she identified with and sought to share their experience. She saw the black community as her people and their struggle for justice, respect, and dignity as her struggle. She created in her mind a narrative of her life that, at least to her, became her truth. Was she who she said she was? Not completely, but maybe she was in the ways that really matter. Perhaps, there is a truth within her experience in that the distinctions don’t really matter and that it’s not black or white, but just us human-beings together on a small planet trying to survive.

A friend recently asked me for my thoughts on the agreement President Obama recently negotiated with Iran to ease sanctions. What follows is my response to his inquiry:

I don’t know the details about the deal President Obama entered into with Iran, so I’m not able to say whether or not it’s a good deal. However, I do think there are many reasons why we need to end the sanctions and to begin moving towards a more normalized relationship with Iran.

First and foremost, the existing economic sanctions simply haven’t worked. They say insanity is doing the same thing over and over again while expecting a different outcome. An economic embargo lasting 60 years didn’t work with Cuba. We have imposed sanctions on Iran for more than 35 years without any measurable success other than impeding the growth of the middle class in Iran, which is against our interests, as I will discuss later.

Furthermore, the United States faces the very real possibility that continuing the sanctions would create isolation for the United States. The Soviet Union, along with several other nations, recently indicated that they would no longer go along with sanctions. Thus, our ability to economically isolate Iran, in what is now a global economy, is weakening.

I recognize that my view on Iran is somewhat different than found in the United States mainstream and within the Jewish community. I do not see Iran as being the uncontrollable threat that it is often portrayed as. Granted, they have a fundamentalist religious government, but I feel that a lot of that is our own fault. We rarely speak about the very complex and questionable history the United States has with Iran. Historically, the United States put cheap oil before democracy in Iran by working to over-throw a democratically elected Iranian government in 1953 for the purpose of ensuring American oil companies could access Iranian oil. The United States installed the Shah, a notoriously cruel puppet dictator who ruled until the Islamic Revolution in 1979, which was when the hostage crisis occurred that still resonates loudly in the minds of many Americans.

However, I think it’s important to point out that the Hostage Crisis, while humiliating for the United States, ended peacefully. The Iranians did not kill their hostages in the manner that we see groups such as the Islamic State doing today.

Despite the difficult history and the religiously based government, I think a relationship between Iran and the United States has the potential to be mutually beneficial. Iran is not a backwards nation. Despite having a religiously fundamentalist government, most Iranians are not fundamentalists. Iran is a nation with a high literacy rate. Iran has built several major universities that are producing scientists who are involved in cutting-edge research. There is an expanding middle class that is not religiously fundamentalist. I believe it’s this expanding middle class that is the future to a secure Iran. However, the existing sanctions have greatly impeded the growth of the Iranian middle class. I believe that it is the emerging Iranian middle class that provides the greatest hope for political reforms in Iran and for long-term peace and stability in the area. A nation with a growing middle class along with expanding education is unlikely to start an unnecessary war.

Much of the political discourse is focused upon atomic weapons. I think we have to keep in mind that the technology that gives rise to atomic weapons is now nearly 70 years old. The United States built atomic bombs in the 1940’s without the use of even the simplest computers. The genie is out of the bottle on this one and we need to give a lot of thought to how do we discourage the proliferation of such weapons and defend against the eventual, and I feel inevitable, situation where an atomic weapon falls into the hands of a terrorist organization. We need to consider how do regimes change, including our own government, without the loss or use of such weapons. Additionally, we need to consider what message do we send by having such overwhelming conventional firepower, yet we still maintain the world’s largest arsenal of atomic weapons and have built more atomic weapons that all other nations in the world combined. Additionally, we are the only nation to have ever used an atomic weapon against an enemy. I think this makes it challenging for the United States to speak with persuasive authority, where we ask another nation to abstain from a form of weaponry that forms the backbone of our own military strategy.

Lastly, Israel understandably feels very vulnerable by any prospect of atomic weapons in Iranian hands. Israel has faces a very real threat from Hezbollah, which obtains a great deal of its funding from Iran. However, I continue to believe that the solution to this problem is an expanding Iranian middle class and the changes I believe would occur in the Iranian political landscape with middle class expansion. In essence, my argument at its very core is “open Iran to the world and see what happens”. We know isolation doesn’t create good things, let’s see what engagement creates.